CA10 on Asylum, Chevron: Rangel-Fuentes v. Garland

Rangel-Fuentes v. Garland

"Cristina Rangel-Fuentes petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), the age of a qualifying child for the purposes of the cancellation of removal should be fixed no later than the date the immigration judge closes the administrative record. In the alternative, Rangel argues that Tenth Circuit precedent requires remand so that the BIA may at least consider whether the particular facts of her case warrant fixing the age of her qualifying child at a date prior to the issuance of the immigration judge’s final decision. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the BIA’s interpretation of § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and that our prior precedent does not require remand for the exercise of the BIA’s discretion. We thus deny the petition for review as to cancellation of removal. However, we agree with Rangel’s separate argument that the BIA abused its discretion by treating her asylum appeal as waived, so we grant the petition for review in part and remand for the BIA to address the merits of Rangel’s asylum appeal."

[Hats off to my dear friend, colleague and compañera from my Colorado days, Sandra Saltrese-Miller!  Also to Brian M. Lipshutz, Kannon K. Shanmugam and Jennifer K. Corcoran!]